CITY OF SHAWNEE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Allen called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. in the Shawnee City Hall Council Chambers. He welcomed the public and all stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a moment of silence.
Councilmembers Present Staff Present Councilmember Pflumm City Manager Montague Councilmember Segale Assistant City Manager Gonzales Councilmember Sawyer City Attorney Rainey Councilmember Goode Finance Director Meyer Councilmember Meyers Public Works Director Freyermuth Councilmember McGuff Police Chief Clark Councilmember Thomas Fire Chief Hudson Councilmember Newby City Engineer Wesselschmidt Traffic Engineer Sherfy Parks and Recreation Director Holman Project Engineer Lindstrom Associate Planner Allmon
Members of the public who spoke: Item 22f) – TONY GORDON, 11110 W. 75th Street; Items 25 and 26c) - DAVID MORRIS, 6125 Melrose Lane; Item 25) - GARY FISHER, Trammell Crow Company; Item 25) – LARRY WINN, 6201 College Boulevard; Item 25) – DAWN KUHN, 5329 Gleason; and VICKI REED, 18641 Midland Drive.
Councilmember Goode asked Mayor Allen to step down for a presentation from the Council. Councilmember Goode stated that on behalf of himself, and his fellow Councilmembers, he would like to take this opportunity to present to Mayor Allen a gavel, as a token of appreciation for the great job he has done throughout the City of Shawnee for so many years. He stated he also wanted to recognize how well Mayor Allen has worked with the City Councilmembers. He stated Mayor Allen had the opportunity to work with all the Councilmembers and made the most of it and everyone appreciates his work. He stated Mayor Allen has done an outstanding job and many of the people in the City of Shawnee recognize it.
Councilmember Goode stated that as he made stops around Shawnee today, people were telling him that they felt sad and humbled that Jim Allen was no longer going to be the Mayor of Shawnee. He stated that as far as he is concerned, those are some of the greatest statements he could ever hear, so it goes to show Mayor Allen has done an outstanding job and the people of Shawnee appreciate all his efforts. PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Mayor Allen stated he would like to thank everyone tonight. He stated it has been a pleasure working with everyone on the Council and with the staff. He said they have made this job as Mayor much easier.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2004.
2. REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 2, 2004.
3. REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 2004.
4. REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2004.
5. REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 1, 2004.
6. REVIEW MINUTES FROM THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2004.
7. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR MAURER ROAD RECONSTRUCTION, JOHNSON DRIVE TO MIDLAND DRIVE, P.N. 3280.
The contract was awarded to Miles Excavating, Inc., Basehor, Kansas, on October 17, 2003, in the amount of $3,010,138.60. This change order reflects a net increase of $38,225.58. The new contract amount for this project, after previous change order, is $3,046,340.18.
8. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR THE MATERIAL STORAGE BIN ROOF – 2003.
The contract was awarded to Heartland Cover-All, Overland Park, Kansas, on July 28, 2003, in the amount of $135,790. This change order reflects a net increase of $13,581.50. The new contract amount for this project is $149,371.50.
9. CONSIDER CHANGE ORDER NO. 7-12 FOR SHAWNEE MISSION PARKWAY, PHASE II, JAYCEE TO HALSEY, P.N. 3185.
This change order from the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) represents a net decrease of $63,937.85. The new contract amount for this project, after previous change orders, is $3,803,287.28. PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
10. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT FOR THE USE OF CDBG ENTITLEMENT FUNDS PER THE 2004 GRANT APPLICATION.
11. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH YMCA OF GREATER KANSAS CITY FOR THE USE OF CDBG ENTITLEMENT FUNDS PER THE 2004 GRANT APPLICATION.
12. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH CHILD CARE FOR LOW INCOME ADVOCACY AND SUPPORT PROGRAM (CLASP) FOR THE USE OF CDBG ENTITLEMENT FUNDS PER THE 2004 GRANT APPLICATION.
13. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY HOUSING SERVICES FOR THE USE OF CDBG ENTITLEMENT FUNDS FOR THE HOME REVITALIZATION PROGRAM PER THE 2004 GRANT APPLICATION.
14. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH JOHNSON COUNTY HOUSING SERVICES FOR THE USE OF CDBG ENTITLEMENT FUNDS FOR THE MINOR HOME REPAIR PROGRAM PER THE 2004 GRANT APPLICATION.
15. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LANDPLAN ENGINEERING, P.A., FOR MONTICELLO PARK AND WEST FLANDERS PARK.
16. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MERRIAM FOR THE MILL AND OVERLAY ON SWITZER FROM 47TH STREET TO 55TH STREET AND 69TH STREET TO 75TH STREET.
17. CONSIDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LENEXA, KANSAS, FOR THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT OF 83RD STREET FROM GLEASON ROAD TO K-7 HIGHWAY.
18. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANTY DEED TO SHONEY’S.
The resolution authorizes a special warranty deed conveying the property on Shawnee Mission Parkway to Shoney’s Inc. as provided by the Lease With Option to Purchase entered into as a part of the issuance of private activity industrial revenue bonds dated December 1, 1982.
Having passed, Resolution 1405 was assigned. PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
19. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE IMPROVEMENT OF JOHNSON DRIVE AND 75TH STREET BY INSTALLATION OF TWO PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SIGNALS, ONE ON JOHNSON DRIVE AND ONE ON 75TH STREET.
Having passed, Resolution 1406 was assigned.
Councilmember Meyers, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve the entire consent agenda. The motion carried 8-0.
MAYOR’S ITEMS
Mayor Allen proposed that the City create a new position of Deputy City Manager to replace the current position of Assistant City Manager. He stated this position would provide more direct authority, additional responsibility, and clearly establish this position as the number two position in the City administration hierarchy. He stated he would also like to say that Carol Gonzales has done an outstanding job as Assistant City Manager.
Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Sawyer, moved to approve the position of Deputy City Manager to replace the current position of Assistant City Manager. The motion carried 8-0.
Mayor Allen recognized the Boy Scout Troop 302.
PUBLIC ITEMS
20. CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REGARDING OPEN SPACE FEES.
Mayor Allen stated the ordinance amends Section 12.14.020 of the Shawnee Municipal Code relating to calculation of fees.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to pass an ordinance regarding open space fees to amend Section 12.14.020 of the Shawnee Municipal Code relating to calculation of fees. The motion carried 8-0. Having passed, Ordinance 2713 was assigned.
21. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEM FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2004.
a) Mayor Allen stated that PUD-7-02-09 and PUD-8-02-09 was tabled for 60 days at the January 26, 2004 City Council meeting. The applicant now requests that this item be tabled to the April 26, 2004 City Council meeting, in the hope of addressing Council concerns.
Mayor Allen stated that the Planning Commission recommended 7-1 that the Council approve PUD-7-02-09 and PUD-8-02-09. PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, moved to table the discussion of PUD-07-02-09, a planned unit development and rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to PMR (Planned Mixed Residential) for a planned mixed residential subdivision; and PUD-8-02-09, a revised planned unit development and rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to PMR (Planned Mixed Residential) on the southern portion of the site for Grey Oaks, a townhome development located on the east side of K-7 Highway within the 22300 to 23100 blocks of 63rd Terrace, to the April 26, 2004 City Council meeting. The motion carried 8-0.
22. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2004.
a) Consider review of SUP-1-89-2, a special use permit previously issued to Diantha King to operate a one-chair beauty salon in her home at 5415 Caenen.
Mayor Allen stated the Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the Council renew SUP-1-89-2.
Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to approve SUP-1-89-2 for Diantha King to operate a one-chair beauty salon in her home at 5415 Caenen, per the Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the March 22, 2004 staff report. The motion carried 8-0.
b) Consider review of SUP-3-77-3, a special use permit previously issued to Hope Lutheran Church to allow a pre-school at 6308 Quivira Road.
Mayor Allen stated the Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the Council renew SUP-3-77-3.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to approve SUP-3-77-3 for Hope Lutheran Church to allow a pre-school at 6308 Quivira Road, per the Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the March 22, 2004 staff report. The motion carried 8-0.
c) Consider review of SUP-1-88-1, a special use permit previously issued to Texaco USA (Shell) to operate a car wash at 11019 West 75th Street.
Mayor Allen stated the Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the Council renew SUP-1-88-1.
Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve SUP-1-88-1 for Texaco USA (Shell) to operate a car wash at 11019 West 75th Street, per the Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the March 22, 2004 staff report. The motion carried 8-0. PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
d) Consider FP-5-04-02, the final plat for Preserve at Clear Creek (formerly Heritage Reserve) for 66 lots at 79th and Clare Road.
Mayor Allen stated the Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the Council accept the dedications on FP-5-04-02.
Councilmember Meyers, seconded by Councilmember Segale, moved to accept the dedications on FP-5-04-02, the final plat for Preserve at Clear Creek (formerly Heritage Reserve) for 66 lots at 79th and Clare Road, per the Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the March 22, 2004 staff report. The motion carried 8-0.
e) The applicant has requested that FP-4-04-02, the final plat for Fairway Hills, 11th Plat, a replat of Lot 273 and Lot 274, for two lots in the 7100 block of Noland, be withdrawn.
Mayor Allen stated the Planning Commission recommended 8-0 that the Council deny FP-4-04-02.
Councilmember Thomas, seconded by Councilmember Segale, moved to withdraw FP-4-04-02, the final plat for Fairway Hills, 11th Plat, a replat of Lot 273 and Lot 274, for two lots in the 7100 block of Noland, per the request of the applicant, Rodrock Development. The motion carried 8-0.
f) Consider SUP-3-04-01, a special use permit request from Gordon’s Liquor to allow a drive-through window in a liquor store in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning district at 11110 West 75th Street.
Mayor Allen stated the Planning Commission recommended 6-2 that the Council deny SUP-3-04-01.
Councilmember Newby stated that 75th Street is very important to him, so he would have three words about this item; no, no and no. He stated Shawnee and 75th Street do not need to be a test bed for new liquor store marketing ideas.
Councilmember Newby, seconded by Councilmember Thomas, moved to accept the Planning Commission’s denial of this permit.
Councilmember Pflumm asked Councilmember Newby the reasoning behind his statement.
Councilmember Newby stated his reasoning would simply be the drive-through concepts that the Planning Commission raised, making it difficult to test the ID of people purchasing liquor. He stated that secondly, there is already a high traffic situation on that corner. He stated if someone wants to have the first drive- PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
through liquor store in Johnson County, he would rather it be in a different city than Shawnee.
Councilmember Pflumm stated that first of all, it is not the Council’s job to determine whether the liquor store can see the ID’s or not, and it is the person’s responsibility who is checking the ID’s to identify them. He stated if the liquor store clerk can not identify that person, then the person should be required to enter the store or to simply not sell them any liquor. He stated if it was not a good idea to have the liquor store at that location, then maybe the Council should not have approved it in the first place.
Councilmember Newby stated the Council did not approve it.
Councilmember Pflumm corrected himself, saying the Planning Commission approved the liquor store at that location.
Councilmember Thomas stated the Planning Commission denied the drive- through with a 6-2 vote and it is a very small lot. She stated if the people are going to be sitting in the car trying to process an order, it could create traffic backups at that intersection that could be unmanageable. She stated the City has enough of a problem across the street with the carwash and people lining up there. She stated too much density has been put onto a small lot so there are traffic problems.
Councilmember Segale stated it is his understanding that the applicant is asking for the special use permit to allow the drive-up component of the liquor store. He stated the owners can put the liquor store at that location with the current zoning. He stated Councilmember Newby’s and Councilmember Thomas’ issue is with the drive-up and whether there is enough space for the cars that stack up, as well as safety issues.
Councilmember Newby stated Councilmember Segale’s statement is correct, as well as the overall condition of whether that is a good use of that space, given the other aspects of the neighborhood.
Councilmember Segale stated he would ask City Attorney Rainey, in terms of somebody coming to the Council after this is decided and saying they were done wrong and they will take the City to court. He asked what kind of grounds the City has to deny this request. He asked if it is rational or reasonable for the City to deny this, based on the theory that it may not be a good thing for the neighborhood.
City Attorney Rainey stated that some things are not determined on the basis of whether it is reasonable or not. He stated this request is for a special use permit. He stated that he assumes from that, based upon the expertise and experience of the planning staff who have the academic training in the code, that they have PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
determined that it would take a change in zoning to permit the drive-through sales, whether it is liquor or other matters. He stated if that is true, then the Council can deny the application for a special use permit. He stated a special use permit generally is simply another species of zoning. He stated it is the kind of zoning that requires the same procedures for zoning and the standard as to whether the Council’s decision is a reasonable one and will be upheld. He stated that gives the Governing Body fairly broad discretion. He stated that assuming that the use of this property for drive-through purposes requires a special use permit, the probability is that the court would determine it to be reasonable.
City Attorney Rainey continued this is a topic he has not researched and he is speaking off the top of his head. He stated if other businesses at this location are allowed drive-through services without a special use permit, then the City might have difficulty defending this.
Associate Planner Allmon stated there was a carwash at this location and, he believes, it actually operated under a special use permit as well. He stated in terms of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Council, their specific citation was for the inability to ID the people properly using that drive- through facility. He stated the Planning Commission also spoke about having issues with not enough light on the west side of the building, where the drive- through window would be in order to see into the car and actually properly ID the individuals.
Councilmember Goode asked if the Planning Commission thought there was going to be some problems, as far as the law is concerned.
Associate Planner Allmon stated that the Planning Commission felt it would be a possible detriment to the health and welfare of the community.
Councilmember Goode stated he thought the statement was made that the liquor store employees could not identify people who came up there for some reason, and did not involve the whole community.
Associate Planner Allmon stated the Planning Commission’s major issue was being able to properly ID people using the drive-through. He stated they also felt if a person is required to walk into a liquor store, it can be judged whether that person is under the influence or not and, possibly, deny them purchasing alcohol.
Councilmember Goode asked City Attorney Rainey if the Planning Commission has that prerogative to take those steps.
City Attorney Rainey answered there is not really a way he can give that judgment this evening. He stated there are a lot of items on the agenda this evening that he participated in and researched, but will confess this item was not one that he anticipated any legal questions. He stated he would need to do some PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
research and investigation to determine both the factual situation and what the applicable law would be, before he could give the Council much of an opinion. He stated his general view is that in all probability, if the Council would approve another drive-through use with comparable layout at this location, then the City might have difficulty defending denial of a special use permit for the alcoholic beverages. He stated he can not say that with any certainty at this time.
Councilmember Pflumm stated the Council’s job is to determine if the lot is going to be able to handle the traffic along the north and west sides of the building, as opposed to whether the liquor store clerks can read the person’s ID who is sitting in the car. He asked if that is correct.
City Attorney Rainey stated it is difficult for him to reply, as he is not looking at the zoning rules and regulations at this time. He stated he believes there is a possibility that the decision would have to be made on the basis of it being the same decision, whether it be alcoholic beverages or ice cream cones.
Mayor Allen stated that based on that, this may be an item that should be tabled to give City Attorney Rainey time for research.
City Attorney Rainey stated that before his opinion influences the Council’s vote in any way, he would highly recommend that this item be tabled for further research.
Councilmember Thomas asked if it would change the number of votes that would be required to pass it, if this item is tabled.
Mayor Allen answered no.
Councilmember Thomas asked City Attorney Rainey if this item is tabled, if he would specifically look into the fact that even if the Council could approve special use permits for other drive-through uses, no other drive-through use requires an ID. She stated if it is a hamburger joint, an ID does not have to be shown to get a burger. She stated there is going to be a slowing of the process of putting customers through the drive-through lane.
Councilmember Newby, seconded by Councilmember Thomas, withdrew the motion to accept the Planning Commission’s denial of this permit.
Councilmember Segale stated he agrees with Councilmember Newby and the rudimentary vision he laid out for the Council with regard to 75th Street. He stated he believes 75th Street is not an area that is in trouble yet, but could easily be in trouble in the future. He stated he does not believe Shawnee wants to go the way of the pawn shop on 75th Street and this may be the first thing that leads the City down that path. PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Pflumm asked what the difference is between a liquor store and a liquor store with a drive-up window, as far as being like a pawn shop.
Councilmember Segale stated Councilmember Newby was talking about the quality of that neighborhood. He stated that outside Shawnee into Merriam and Overland Park there is a tattoo parlor and a pawn shop just past Switzer and there has been some trouble at one of the bars in that area. He stated he does not want that area to become a problem area in the City. He believes Councilmember Newby was alluding to the fact that, maybe, a drive-through liquor store would make a negative impact. He stated he does not know if it would have a negative impact or not; he was just commenting on it.
TONY GORDON, Gordon’s Liquor, 11110 W. 75th Street, stated that when he first came to the City with an idea to rehab this building and develop this building into a liquor store, he spoke with the Planning Department, extensively, about putting the drive-through in. He stated he was given some assurances that it would not be that big of a problem. He stated in the State of Kansas drive- through liquor stores are legal and are currently in Lawrence, Wichita, and other parts of the State. He stated if the Council would look at the findings that the Planning Department actually put together, they will find that the Planning Department actually contacted the Police Department and other areas of the City, to find out if there were any issues and there were not. He stated the Planning Department actually looked at the issue of stacking cars on the building. He stated at one point, where this drive-through is actually going to be located, there was a drive-through carwash. He stated it takes 5-6 minutes to get a car washed. He stated he guarantees the stacking problem would not be a timing issue at the liquor store, as Councilmember Thomas stated earlier. He stated that as far as ID goes, he would like the Council to come out to the location at any time and look at the lighting on that side of the building. He stated the building is highly lighted. He stated there are two lamp post lights on the far side and also two building lights on the drive-through side. He stated the drive-through side is at eye level and the car will drive up and the clerk will be able to see directly into the car within around a two foot area. He stated he does not believe an ID issue will be a problem.
TONY GORDON stated the Planning Commission had issues of children being affected by this. He stated he can understand those issues, as he has children of his own and lives in Shawnee, but stated that the majority of the people who have come into speak with him about this are mothers with children shopping for a Friday or Saturday night dinner party. He stated when these mothers have their children in the car with them, they would rather use a drive-through than have to load the kids out of the car and bring them into a liquor store and go through the ordeal of buying liquor. He stated these people could just drive through to the window and asked for their purchases for their dinner party and take the kids home without having to get out of their cars. He stated it is very convenient, not only for construction workers getting off work that really do not want to have to PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
stop again and get out of their vehicles to get something, but also for mothers and fathers and others in the community. He stated it is a very convenient thing.
TONY GORDON continued that as far as legalities go, he would never sue Shawnee over something like this. He stated if the Council says no, then that is that. He stated this area has been a drive-through for a carwash, from what he understands, for approximately 9 years. He stated if cars can be stacked for a drive-through carwash, there is no reason why cars could not be stacked for a drive-through liquor store. He stated the vehicles come around the back and if the Council would look at Associate Planner Allmon’s report, it shows the findings from the Planning Department were fine. He stated the Planning Department actually said to go ahead and they wanted to approve this request. He stated it was the Planning Commission that denied it. He stated he would appreciate the Council at least looking into this further, because it is detrimental to his business and is something that would set him apart from other liquor stores in the area. He stated he was hoping and banking on approval from the Council.
Councilmember Segale asked if the Planning Commission had Police Chief Clark’s memo at the time they made their decision.
Associate Planner Allmon answered yes.
Councilmember Thomas, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, moved to table the request for SUP-3-04-01, a special use permit for Gordon’s Liquor to allow a drive-through window in a liquor store in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning district at 11110 West 75th Street, for 30 days for legal counsel to review. The motion carried 8-0.
23. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 1, 2004.
a) Consider FP-7-04-03, the final plat for Lakepointe, 8th Plat, for 24 lots in the 20800-21100 blocks of West 60th Terrace.
Mayor Allen stated the Planning Commission recommended 10-0 that the Council accept the dedications on FP-7-04-03.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember McGuff, moved to accept the dedications on FP-7-04-03, the final plat for Lakepointe, 8th Plat, for 24 lots in the 20800-21100 blocks of West 60th Terrace, per the Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the March 22, 2004 staff report. The motion carried 8-0.
b) Consider FP-8-04-03, the final plat for Heather Glen, 2nd Plat, for 39 lots in the 4900 block of Bradshaw. PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Mayor Allen stated the Planning Commission recommended 10-0 that the Council accept the dedications on FP-8-04-03.
Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember McGuff, moved to accept the dedications on FP-8-04-03, the final plat for Heather Glen, 2nd Plat, for 39 lots in the 4900 block of Bradshaw, per the Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the March 22, 2004 staff report. The motion carried 8-0.
c) Consider SUP-4-04-03, a request for a special use permit for Power Play Entertainment Center to allow the operation of a restaurant with family entertainment in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning district at 13110 West 62nd Terrace.
Mayor Allen stated the Planning Commission recommended 10-0 that the Council approve SUP-4-04-03.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve SUP-4-04-03 for Power Play Entertainment Center to allow the operation of a restaurant with family entertainment in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood) zoning district at 13110 West 62nd Terrace, per the Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the March 22, 2004 staff report. The motion carried 8-0.
d) Consider Z-1-04-03, a request to rezone from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) for Estates of Timber Springs, a proposed 182-lot subdivision in the 13100-13500 blocks of 51st Street.
Mayor Allen stated the Planning Commission recommended 10-0 that the Council approve Z-1-04-03.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, moved to pass an ordinance for Z-1-04-03 to rezone from AG (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) for the development of the Estates of Timber Springs, a proposed 182-lot subdivision in the 13100-13500 blocks of 51st Street, per the Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the March 22, 2004 staff report. The motion carried 8-0. Having passed, Ordinance 2714 was assigned.
e) Consider amendments to Section 17.51 Table of General Use Regulations, Section 17.57.035 Landscaping-Planting Requirements, and Section 17.94 Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy.
Mayor Allen stated the Planning Commission recommended 10-0 that the Council accept the approved amendments to Section 17.51, Section 17.57.035 and Section 17.94. PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Segale, moved to pass an ordinance and accept the amendments for Section 17.51 Table of General Use Regulations, Section 17.57.035 Landscaping-Planting Requirements, and Section 17.94 Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy, per the Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the March 22, 2004 staff report. The motion carried 8-0. Having passed, Ordinance 2715 was assigned.
24. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEM FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2004.
a) Consider FP-10-04-03, the final plat for Shawnee Crossings Retail Center, 3rd Plat, for Lot 8, located in the 6800 block of Silverheel.
Mayor Allen stated the Planning Commission recommended 6-0 that the Council accept the dedications on FP-10-04-03.
Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, moved to accept the dedications on FP-10-04-03, the final plat for Shawnee Crossings Retail Center, 3rd Plat, for Lot 8, located in the 6800 block of Silverheel, per the Planning Commission’s recommendations listed in the March 22, 2004 staff report. The motion carried 8-0.
COUNCIL ITEMS
25. CONSIDER SP-10-04-02, A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR BANK OF AMERICA, FOR A BANK BUILDING WITH OFFICE SPACE AT 22503 WEST 66TH STREET.
Mayor Allen stated the Planning Commission denied this site plan by a vote of 6-4. The site plan was called up for review by the City Council.
Associate Planner Allmon stated the Planning Commission discussed this item at their March 1, 2004 meeting and denied approval of the site plan. He stated that during their discussion, the Planning Commission acknowledged that the architecture of the building proposed was somewhat better than the site plan denied in November, 2003, however, there was nothing distinctive about the design. He stated the Planning Commission also expressed concern that the office space was not integrated into the bank building, but appeared as an attachment, giving a strip mall look. He stated it was also noted that there was enough property on the site to accommodate a larger bank office building and the parking provided greatly exceeded that which is required for the facility presented. He stated that finally, the Planning Commission members felt the bank was not in conformance with the amended Policy Statement regarding the suggested size of branch bank office buildings also major corridors at prime intersections. He stated the applicant argued that the submittal of their site plan to staff in February should relieve them of the burden regarding the issue. He stated the Planning Commission did offer the applicant an opportunity to table consideration of this site plan to address issues as expressed by the PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Planning Commission. He stated the applicant requested that the Planning Commission act on the issue that evening.
Councilmember Pflumm stated this is a good project for the City of Shawnee and these plans do not meet the City’s requirements, but the requirements were changed following the Developer’s first submittal to the City. He stated he thinks the Council should recommend this project.
Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve SP-10- 04-02, a site plan approval for Bank of America, for a bank building with office space at 22503 West 66th Street.
Councilmember Segale stated he signed the letter to call this up, not necessarily because he disagreed with what the Planning Commission did, but he thought it was the first test of the City’s policy that the Council approved in February, in terms of this significant corner issue with banks. He stated in reading the amendments that the Council made and reading through the minutes, he feels the Planning Commission was correct in denying this. He stated what the City generally requires is a bank to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet and that requirement is based on whether it can fit onto the lot. He stated that should be the only reason for the City to allow developers to vary from that. He stated in the case of this bank, he believes it is clear that the developers have the space to do a building that is 10,000 square feet. He stated he also agrees with the Planning Commission, although it is murkier as to the quality or with the look of the building in terms of a significant piece of architecture. He stated he supports what the Planning Commission did and would recommend that the Council not approve the motion, because he thinks the City’s Planning Commission is waking up and trying to demand or ask that developers come in with higher quality developments and it would be awful for the City, as the developers take these steps, to tell them the City does not support what they are doing.
Councilmember Segale stated the Council voted to approve the amendments to the Land Use Guide only a month ago, and he believes the Council should stick with the Planning Commission. He stated that is why he wanted to call it up. He stated he believes the building is okay and thinks the developer could make it bigger and could integrate the office use into it so that it looks like one unified structure, instead of a building with a strip mall piece attached to the side of it. He stated he believes the Council should want builders to perform at a higher quality in these significant locations.
Councilmember Newby stated he signed the letter for the same reason and he thinks it is unfortunate that the Bank of America might get caught in the crossfire. He stated he believes it would be wrong if the Council does not support the Planning Commission in something they were just authorized to do. He stated it is nothing against the developer coming to the City, but more on the principle of how the City designed their new plan and the Council should follow that. PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Meyers asked Associate Planner Allmon if staff supports approval of this item.
Associate Planner Allmon answered that staff supported the plan itself. He stated building setbacks were met, as well as site landscaping. He stated the Planning Commission, in terms of the approval and whether or not it met the comprehensive plan, had ultimate discretion on that portion of the approval and recommendation.
Councilmember Meyers referred to the integrated office development and asked if that was part of the policy and stated in the policy.
Associate Planner Allmon answered that it does not specifically state in the policy that the office has to be integrated within the main structure.
Councilmember Meyers stated he believes that is a point that needs to be understood by the Council. He asked, with regard to architectural quality, if the Planning Commission specifically stated they desired something that the applicant was not willing to look at or to do. He stated he saw the first set of plans and the second set being presented. He stated it looks as if there have been major changes. He stated he does not know if there was something specific the Planning Commission was looking at, above and beyond what they were shown.
Associate Planner Allmon answered that in terms of architectural distinction, the two things the Planning Commission would have preferred to see is that the building would be one base with the office inside, so it does not look, in their words, disjointed, and he believes the Planning Commission was looking more towards a true two-story structure; something like Country Club Bank or the recently approved Great Western Bank on Shawnee Mission Parkway.
Councilmember Meyers stated this application was brought forth as Councilmember Pflumm stated earlier, prior to the policy being enforced when the developer first started this project.
Associate Planner Allmon answered the developer began the process with a site plan application that was denied in November 2003. He stated that at that time, the Planning Commission determined that they would not hear any more bank applications until they got the refinements to the comprehensive plan completed. He stated this applicant, on their own discretion, submitted an application anyway. He stated it did go before the Planning Commission and they voted to table that matter until the policy was adopted, brought before the City Council, and actually published. He stated the Planning Commission did not actually take action to deny this plan until after the comprehensive plan had been amended.
Councilmember Meyers stated he believes it always comes down to asking City Attorney Rainey questions on legality and situations of harm to the City. He asked City Attorney Rainey how he felt the City stood on this item, if it were to be denied. PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
City Attorney Rainey stated that giving direction or guidance to the Council on this matter is exceedingly difficult, because it does not come as an ordinary zoning matter. He stated it does not come before the Council as a zoning issue; it comes before the Council with an application having been made to the City for a site plan approval. He stated an application for site plan approval goes to the Planning Commission and there is no required notice to adjacent property owners. He stated there is a hearing by the Planning Commission and essentially the applicant and the City staff makes a presentation. He stated the Planning Commission makes the recommendation and in normal zoning matters, that recommendation comes before the Governing Body for the final determination. He stated there is a right for a protest petition by adjacent property owners. When it comes before the Council, they can either adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission, if it was in favor of rezoning by the passage of an ordinance by five votes, or it can be referred back to the Planning Commission by a two-thirds vote majority, or the Council can override a protest petition by a three-fourths vote majority. He stated the applicant then has the right to appeal to the courts the reasons for that decision.
City Attorney Rainey continued that none of those procedures are really before the Council this evening. He stated he is not able to tell the Council exactly what standards he believes the court would use in following this. He stated he supposes there would be some question about the City’s ability to make the requirement a binding requirement of a site plan approval. He stated that by giving thought to it, he is not sure what the law would be that would apply. He stated this is certainly a situation that would raise legal issues if it is denied. He stated that may not be reason enough to deny it.
Councilmember Thomas stated she does not see Larry Winn in the audience.
Mayor Allen asked if there was a representative present for the applicant.
Councilmember Thomas stated that Larry Winn is a very powerful development attorney in Johnson County. She stated Mr. Winn worked very hard on this project and is the person who strategically decided to use the strategy of having it called up by the Council, after it was denied by the Planning Commission. She stated Mr. Winn then lobbied some members of the Council, but not all of them. She stated her only assumption is that Mr. Winn got enough votes over the phone, not in a public meeting, that he did not even feel it was important enough to even be present at the meeting tonight.
GARY FISHER, Trammell Crow Company, stated they are the applicant in this matter. He stated that he and Mr. Winn were under the impression that this item was going to be on the agenda later in the evening. He stated Mr. Winn was going to be late in arriving. He stated he is very sorry and asked that this item be heard later on in the agenda this evening, if possible. PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Segale stated if the motion is withdrawn, he does not have a problem in waiting for Mr. Winn to arrive. He stated he believes it is important that the Council have this discussion.
Councilmember McGuff stated he would be in favor of moving this item to the end of the meeting, because he is interested in asking the applicant if he is willing to make the changes that the Planning Commission has asked.
Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to table this item to the end of the meeting. The motion carried 8-0.
26. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FROM THE FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 2, 2004.
a) Consider Basin Study for Perimeter Park.
Councilmember Newby stated the Committee recommended 4-0 that the Council approve the $35,000 cost to widen the overflow spillway and add one foot of height to the west berm of the basin at Perimeter Park.
Councilmember Newby, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve the 35,000 cost to widen the overflow spillway and add one foot of height to the west berm of the basin at Perimeter Park as recommended in the Basin Study. The motion carried 8-0.
b) Consider Alley Maintenance Practices.
Councilmember Newby stated the Committee recommended 4-0 that the Council approve the new system of maintenance for the downtown alleys, with the first alleys listed as priority as those closest to the downtown area, per the proposal by City staff.
Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to approve the new system of maintenance for the downtown alleys, with the first alleys listed as priority as those closest to the downtown area, and request that the Downtown Partnership meet with surrounding businesses for their recommendations, per the proposal by City staff. The motion carried 8-0.
c) Consider the 2004 Street Resurfacing Program.
Councilmember Newby stated the Committee recommended 4-0 that the Council tentatively approve the locations for the 2004 Street Resurfacing Program to include a creation of a Policy Statement that allows the City to pave those areas in the public right-of-way with the streets, pending the re-ranking and decision on the type of treatment for 62nd Terrace – Quivira to E. of King, Midland – Pflumm to Blackfish, Flint – 62nd Terrace to Johnson Drive, and Goddard – Johnson PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Drive to 55th Street and schedule the bid opening date for March 16, 2004 and to direct staff to create a new list of the streets that will be included in the 2004 Street Resurfacing Program for final consideration at the March 22, 20034 City Council meeting.
Councilmember Newby stated Table 1 shows the cost of overlaying these streets. The list also shows the estimated cost to overlay the four streets the Committee recommended removing from the list of streets to receive a chip seal treatment this summer. Due to the low bid received for the Mill & Overlay Program, no streets will need to be removed from the 2004 list.
Councilmember Thomas asked City Manager Montague if he could explain the sidewalk cost on Midland Drive – Pflumm to Blackfish. She asked if that would put sidewalks in where there are no sidewalks presently.
City Manager Montague answered no. He stated that none of those sidewalks are included and that would be an additional project. He stated City Engineer Wesselschmidt has a chart that shows the sidewalks.
Councilmember Thomas stated she would like to vote on this first motion to overlay all of these streets, including Midland, just at the two lanes and then have a discussion about other costs and amenities, but that would not be a part of this motion.
Councilmember Meyers, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to approve the locations for the 2004 Street Resurfacing Program to include a creation of a Policy Statement that allows the City to pave those areas in the public right-of-way.
Councilmember Thomas asked if the staff could enlighten the Council as to what it would cost to construct curbs on Midland and what it would cost to complete a sidewalk on Midland. She stated people walk from Autumn Woods and then have to jump out into the street. She stated that would not be a part of this street resurfacing and would be an additional project to look at. She stated there are a lot of interested people, who were notified of this meeting and wanted to know the costs and possibilities.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated this reflects Midland Drive from Pflumm on the east side which is the north/south street and the east/west street is 67 th Street. He presented an overhead that noted in yellow the areas where curbs exist and noted in red the areas where sidewalks exist. He stated that will give the Council an idea of what areas are lacking curbs and sidewalks. He pointed out the piece from 67th Street down to Blackfish Parkway.
Councilmember Pflumm stated it looks like the west side the sidewalk goes all the way from Blackfish to 67th, except for the piece that is not developed. PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated on Blackfish Parkway, up to 68th Terrace, there is curb and sidewalk on the west side.
Councilmember Pflumm asked if the undeveloped piece is really the only site all the way to 67th that does not have sidewalk.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt answered yes.
Councilmember Thomas asked if that is the lot that has just been sold by Mr. Sandifer.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated he does not know who the owner is of that piece of ground.
Councilmember Pflumm asked if when that piece is developed, if a sidewalk will be put in.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt answered that is what has typically taken place on Midland Drive. He stated the curb and sidewalk has been put in when various pieces of ground have developed adjacent to it. He stated that has happened, of course, over a long period of time.
Councilmember Segale stated Midland was on the City’s bike lane plan and he believes that was removed from the on-street bike lane.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt answered that is correct.
Councilmember Segale asked if sections where it may be narrow and there is no curb will have to be widened to put the curb in.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt answered that is correct; at the areas where the City does not have curb, the pavement is somewhat narrower, so when curb is added, it would be wider.
Councilmember Segale stated that basically in his perspective, this looks like a Capital Improvement Project. He stated for some reason, the bike lane plan has been removed, so it does not need the extra 2 ½ feet on each side if it were to be rebuilt with the correct underlay and all the other things that would be performed, i.e. drainage, curbs, and sidewalks. He stated if this were on the Capital Improvement Plan to be improved, basically they would be talking about ripping the street up and making up the subsurface and putting in new curbs where they need to put them in. He asked if that was what would happen if this was a Capital Improvement Project. He stated there would not necessarily be any lane widening to the road. PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
City Engineer Wesselschmidt answered that is correct. He stated this would be a pretty extensive project. He presented an overhead showing the funding options. He stated that Option 1 would complete the curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the street, storm drainage, which would be somewhat extensive work with crossroad culverts that would need to be done, and to mill and overlay the pavement. He stated this would count on leaving the existing road out there and milling and overlaying. He stated construction would be around $1.1 million by the time easements and right-of-way is added where not adequate at this time and the soft costs for engineering would also be included in that figure. He stated with utility relocations the cost would come up to around $1.65 million. He stated this would certainly be a sizeable CIP project. He stated there are a couple of other options that have been discussed in the past. He stated Option 2 is the same as Option 1, except it would accommodate recreational bicyclists with an eight foot trail on one side and that would raise the cost to just over $2 million. He stated Option 3 was looked at several years ago, when the project was on the CIP and the staff had the engineers at Cook, Flatt, Strobel put together the preliminary engineering report and that would reflect a cost of around $2.55 million. He stated that was for a street with on-street bike lanes.
Councilmember Pflumm stated he is in favor of looking at the sidewalk issue, first of all from a safety issue for children, but he thinks if the Council is actually going to look at this sidewalk, then they need to look at the entire City and find out what are the most dangerous areas around schools, and not necessarily pick this one street to put in curbs and sidewalks. He stated he thinks this has been elevated to a CIP project, but the Council needs to determine if they are doing it for safety reasons or just for the road and he believes this should be tabled for the CIP discussions, or at least make a motion to look at this as part of the CIP, as opposed to a special item at a City Council meeting.
Councilmember Segale stated he thinks there are some misunderstandings here with the people who live on the road and however that would be developed. He stated when the bike lane plan was taken off the CIP, the widening issue sort of went away. He stated he has always thought if there wasn’t the bike lanes, there should be a recreational trail system, because it ties in nicely with what the City has on Blackfish Parkway and Midland Drive. He stated that is an amenity that a lot of people use down there and one that the people on this old end of Midland would probably like. He stated he would like to see this put back on the CIP, even though the City does not have any money to do anything on the CIP at this time, and look at it when it comes up in the summer with the understanding that the City is not looking at widening the road, just talking about putting in sidewalks and curbs and making it into a normal street at some point in the future. He stated he does not think a decision is going to be made this evening. He stated the Council has already agreed to resurface the streets, so whatever fears people had about widening first of all, are not correct, because the Council took it off the bike lane plan and second of all, he believes it pushes it off to the 7-10 year lane since it is going to be resurfaced. PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Pflumm asked when this item is looked at as a CIP item, is there any way the Council can just look at it as just a sidewalk issue, as opposed to looking at it as sidewalks, curbs, and drainage.
City Engineer Wesselschmidt stated there have been attempts made to try to put sidewalks on streets that do not have curbs and those have been less than successful. He stated the staff would not recommend putting sidewalks on a street that does not have the full curb and drainage system to go with it.
Councilmember Meyers stated the clarifications made were satisfactory to him as Councilmember Segale finished speaking. He stated he thinks it is important for the Council to make a determination as to whether the street is going to be overlaid at this time or not. He stated he thinks that does need to be done and believes the Council has plenty of time to discuss when and how they want to go about looking at this project as a future CIP project.
Councilmember Goode stated this was originally looked at 3 or 4 years ago.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he agrees with Councilmember Meyers. He stated he does not want to see an attempt to add a sidewalk to this area. He stated the City already has one of those streets over in Ward 2 on Goddard, where a sidewalk addition was attempted and it is sometimes on the street and sometimes in a little ditch. He stated the City made a bad situation worse with this location and he does not believe that is what the Council wants to do here. He stated he would agree with what has been said so far.
Councilmember Goode stated there is the same problem on Flint, as the sidewalk is right next to the street which is a very unsafe situation after dark. He stated he agrees with Councilmember Meyers.
Councilmember Thomas stated she thinks it is clear that the Council is not going to solve the sidewalk issue this evening, but would like to make sure that the Councilmembers understand that there are a lot of people wanting to walk who have to jump out into the street for short sections, which is dangerous. She stated she also wanted to get on record that when the City puts in eight foot wide, off- street bicycle lanes, real bicyclists do not ride there; they ride in the street. She stated there are so many strollers and slow walking people, that those who cycle do not want to deal with them. She stated she can not imagine that the City would go to the expense of spending $2 million to take more people’s yards to put in an eight foot wide sidewalk on the pretext that bicyclists would use it, because it will only be used by slow walkers and strollers.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he tends to disagree with Councilmember Thomas’ statement as he drives to work on Blackfish Parkway every morning and comes PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
home that way every evening. He stated he sees real bicyclists on that path quite a bit.
DAVID MORRIS, 6125 Melrose Lane, stated he would remind the Council that when it comes to the CIP, the downtown area is starting to come back and they can look out the back door at this very location, and see an area with no curb and guttering. He stated he can make a real strong case about the safety of the downtown area. He stated every area in Shawnee are important, but he would not want the older areas to be forgotten.
Therefore the motion read: Councilmember Meyers, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to approve the locations for the 2004 Street Resurfacing Program to include streets: 62nd Terrace – Quivira to E. of King, Midland – Pflumm to Blackfish, Flint – 62nd Terrace to Johnson Drive, and Goddard – Johnson Drive to 55th Street; and, that staff prepare a revision of a Policy Statement that allows the City to pave those areas in the public right-of-way The motion carried 8-0.
BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR
There was no business from the floor.
STAFF ITEMS
27. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICE PROPOSAL FOR HOLLIDAY DRIVE, LOCUST TO I-435.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve the Engineering Design Service proposal from Burns and McDonnell for Holliday Drive, Locust to I-435, not to exceed the proposed fee of $524,563. The motion carried 8-0.
28. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ENGINEERING DESIGN CONCEPT SERVICES PROPOSAL FOR THE JOHNSON DRIVE AND NIEMAN ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND STREETSCAPE, P.N. 3304.
Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve the Engineering Design Concept Service proposal from Landplan Engineering, for the Johnson Drive and Nieman Road intersection improvements and streetscape, P.N. 3304. The motion carried 8-0.
29. CONSIDER BIDS FOR EIGHT IN-CAR VIDEO SYSTEMS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Mayor Allen stated bids were received on February 24, 2004. PAGE 23 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to award the bid for eight in-car video systems for the police department to Mobile-Vision, Boonton, New Jersey, in the amount of $28,712. The motion carried 8-0.
30. CONSIDER BIDS FOR 2004 MILL & OVERLAY, CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK PROGRAM.
Mayor Allen stated bids were received on March 16, 2004.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he would like to see the staff do some follow-up and when the curbs and gutters are performed, have the staff go back and make sure these locations are backfilled and if a lot of grass gets torn out, get it replanted. He stated case in point, the staff needs to go back to 67th Street where the sidewalk and some drainage was replaced. He stated it looks bad out there. He stated the staff needs to make sure they hold the construction company accountable. He stated the City wants to get what they pay for.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated the staff is aware that they do need to go back on 67th Street and finish up some things there, as that was completed late in the fall last year.
Councilmember Segale asked if the City had ever used Miller Paving & Construction in the past.
Public Works Director Freyermuth answered the City used Miller Paving & Construction one other time, as a direct contractor to the City and Miller has worked as a subcontractor for the City on several occasions. He stated they do quality work.
Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, moved to award the bid for the 2004 Mill and Overlay, Curb Gutter and Sidewalk Program to Miller Paving & Construction, LLC, Kansas City, Kansas, in the amount of $2,007,441.80. The motion carried 8-0.
31. CONSIDER BIDS FOR PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS ON JOHNSON DRIVE AT HOCKER GROVE SCHOOL, AND ON 75TH STREET AT GOOD SHEPHERD SCHOOL, P.N. 3306.
Mayor Allen stated bids were received on March 16, 2004.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he hopes that staff is still on line to get Hocker Grove completed before the school year is out, so that little girl that brought this to the Council’s attention can be one of the first people to push the button. He asked if Good Shepherd will be completed before the end of the school year.
Public Works Director Freyermuth answered that ‘hopefully’ is probably the correct word, as it is the intent of the staff to have it completed by the end of the school year, but PAGE 24 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
poles still need to be ordered for that location. He stated that the department is using poles that the City currently has for Hocker Grove. He stated Good Shepherd may or may not be completed by fall, but every effort is going to be made to make that happen.
Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to award the bid for the pedestrian signals on Johnson Drive at Hocker Grove School and on 75th Street at Good Shepherd School, to Total Electric, Edwardsville, Kansas, in the amount of $57,900, P.N. 3306. The motion carried 8-0.
32. CONSIDER BIDS FOR A LARGE FORMAT PRINTER-SCANNER FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
Mayor Allen stated bids were received on February 24, 2004.
Councilmember Thomas stated she wanted to acknowledge the staff for figuring out that the low bidder that was thrown out had sold a copier as new that was actually used. She stated that is very important to know and that is the kind of diligence that the Council appreciates and respects from the staff.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Thomas, moved to award the bid for a large format printer-scanner for the Planning Department to Western Blueprint/US Reprographics, Kansas City, Missouri, in the amount of $27,270. The motion carried 8- 0.
33. CONSIDER BIDS FOR 2004 STREET SIGN MATERIALS.
Mayor Allen stated bids were received on February 24, 2004.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Newby, moved to award the bid for the 2004 Street Sign Materials to Vulcan Signs, Avery Dennison, and J & A Traffic Products for a grand total of $34,159.64. The motion carried 8-0.
34. CONSIDER BIDS FOR 2004 STREET LIGHT MATERIALS.
Mayor Allen stated bids were received on February 24, 2004.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to award the bid for the 2004 Street Light Materials to Kriz-Davis Co., Calkins Electrical, and Graybar Electric, for a grand total of $34,511.10. The motion carried 8-0.
35. CONSIDER BIDS FOR 2004 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MATERIALS.
Mayor Allen stated bids were received on February 24, 2004. PAGE 25 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to award the bid for the 2004 Traffic Signal Materials to Mid American Signal, Gades Sales, and Traffic Parts Inc., for a grand total of $18,083.50. The motion carried 8-0.
36. CONSIDER THE FINAL PLANS FOR THE 67TH AND LONG INTERSECTION, P.N. 3300.
Mayor Allen stated the final plans have been reviewed. The project cost estimate is $405,801. The estimate for the total project cost is $559,651. The total budget for this project is $500,000, to be paid with $137,000 of CARS funding and $422,651 in general obligation bonds.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he is not ready to jump in and make a motion on this item. He stated he spoke to the resident that lives at the northwest corner of this location and right now as it stands, that resident is going to lose two feet of his property and the City has offered him a whopping $100.00 for his inconvenience. He stated the resident will lose on-street parking, although parking would be tough at that corner. He stated he believes the project should go forward. He stated he attended the March 9, 2004 meeting and there were two property owners present. He stated he believes the Council needs to be more cognizant of what is going on when lights are placed on a corner and then the City takes away the person’s right to park on the street. He stated this resident also has some concerns about the construction time, which they all know is never good, but he does have a wedding planned in June, so there will obviously be more people at his home. He stated he thinks the resident is willing to work with the City and is not dead set against the plan. He stated the resident also feels it most likely needs to happen.
Councilmember Sawyer continued by stating that the other factor, where he believes the resident may have a good point, is what will happen to the resale value of his home with a stoplight and traffic that will, most likely, only be heavy two times a day, nine to ten months out of the year. He stated he believes the Council needs to rethink what they are going to do there and how they are going to compensate the resident for this inconvenience that will probably not be for a short period of time. He stated it can basically be said that it will be forever. He stated he is not saying the City should give him the moon, but he believes the staff needs to look at maybe going in and adding another section to the driveway so the resident can park another car. He stated he struggles with this because he lives on the corner of a very busy street. He stated that, fortunately, he does not have a stoplight to contend with, but does feel for this resident and his inconvenience.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated at this point, staff is looking at moving the plans along into final plan approval by the Council, so they can take bids on this project. He stated staff has been working on this project since last fall and have had a couple of meetings, besides the meeting that Councilmember Sawyer referred to a couple of weeks ago. He stated the project has moved along so it can, hopefully, be bid and started by June 2004, so it is able to be performed during the summer months when the Northwest High School traffic will be at a minimum. He stated there will still be some activity PAGE 26 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
throughout the summer months, but that, by far, will be the best time to do the project. He stated if this could be moved through on final plan approval this evening, the staff will still talk with the resident on the northwest corner to see if they can work something out that is appropriate for what they will be doing at that location. He stated that it is a very minor amount of work to the resident’s property and that is what the acquisition offers are always based on; what the City will be acquiring in either access rights in a temporary construction easement, which is what they are working with here, or the value of the property if it was actually right-of-way that would be taken. He stated in this case, it is just the temporary easement and the staff might be able to make some adjustments to the plans that would reduce or remove the need for a temporary easement. He stated it is a minor amount of disturbance to the property, but as Councilmember Sawyer has stated, it will mean possible actual changes to the owner’s use of the property to some degree. He stated it is really hard to put any value to that, when the City is just working in current right-of-way and already have the right-of-way obtained to do that.
Councilmember Sawyer asked if the resident will lose a couple of trees in this process. He stated one tree is in the right-of-way.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated the tree would not get replaced if it is in the right-of-way. He stated he believes there is one tree in the right-of-way that will be removed.
Councilmember Sawyer asked if that tree was planted when that subdivision was built.
Public Works Director Freyermuth stated that could be correct.
Councilmember Sawyer stated that is his point. He stated the City needs to try to put the property back as close as when someone built the subdivision.
Councilmember Segale stated he appreciates what Councilmember Sawyer is saying, having dealt with the same situation in Ward 1. He stated those are things that the staff, Councilmember Sawyer, and Councilmember Goode can work through with the resident. He stated when they put the stoplight in at Benninghoven, he assumes the people on the east side of the road lost the ability to have parking too, because of the light.
Councilmember Goode stated there was this same problem on Long Avenue between Johnson Drive and Shawnee Mission Parkway. He stated the City had to do a lot of these and he is familiar with this situation. He stated the Council is going to approve this and work out those plans like the City did on the other side of Shawnee Mission Parkway.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve the final plans for the 67th and Long intersection at a cost estimate of $405,801, with the estimate for the total project cost at $559,651; with the total budget for this project at $500,000, to be paid with $137,000 of CARS funding and $422,651, in general obligation bonds. The motion carried 8-0. PAGE 27 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
37. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SEMI-MONTHLY CLAIM FOR MARCH 22, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,783,974.61.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Thomas, moved to approve the semi-monthly claim for March 22, 2004, in the amount of $1,783,974.61. The motion carried 8-0.
38. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL ITEMS.
a) New 10-Year Moratorium – Widening of 75th & Blackfish.
Councilmember Thomas stated a 10-year moratorium was suggested to her by City Manager Montague. She stated there has been an extraordinary campaign door to door to 3,000 households of misinformation and fear that the Council is imminently going to widen this street and that they could do it at any time. She stated it has been said by a Planning Commissioner that 75th/Blackfish is on the list and they need to take it off the list. She stated it is not on a Capital Improvement Plan. She stated the City does not have the money to widen it, nor is there, according to the City’s staff opinion, a need to widen it at this time. She stated the City had a 10-year moratorium when it was first widened and the traffic has not built appreciably since then. She stated it came as a shock to Councilmember Newby when the stop sign was put in at Wedgewood that it did not meet any of the traffic warrants. She stated it was done by a courtesy from the City and for concern by the neighbors, but there is not a volume of traffic on Blackfish Parkway that would warrant the widening.
Councilmember Thomas continued there is also another precedent where when the City expanded the Deffenbaugh landfill, certainty was given to those neighbors that it would only be open for 25 years; not an open ended deal. She stated as she has gone door to door in the neighborhoods, people are very concerned because there is a lot of transience there of upper-scaled business people who have been transferred to the City. She stated those people are constantly asking if this street is going to be widened. She stated it is very evident that parts of Blackfish are extraordinarily wide; there is a wider greenbelt there than anywhere else within the City. She stated that can affect the resale value of homes if it is always hanging over their heads. She stated the residents have asked that the Council pass another 10-year moratorium so that they will have that certainty of the Council’s intention and integrity. She stated it has been suggested that the City will try to outlaw something forever. She stated that is not possible in government. She stated when the income tax was passed originally, it was only 1% and only on certain parts of income. She stated future governments do have the right to change their mind and do things as necessary, so a future Governing Body is not handcuffed. She stated a 10-year moratorium would give these residents the certainty and confidence to tell their realtors, or their PAGE 28 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
prospective purchasers, that the street will not be widened for 10 years. She stated it would be a simple thing for the City to do, since there is no intention to widen that street, nor do they have the money or the need for it.
Councilmember Thomas, seconded by Councilmember Newby, moved to approve a 10-year moratorium on the widening of 75th Street and Blackfish Parkway.
Councilmember Newby stated he would say that regardless of the conditions that caused this to come up this evening, he believes the people in Wedgwood, which is the largest subdivision in Ward 4, would expect him to support that whenever it came up.
Councilmember Pflumm asked if any of the residents were present this evening that Councilmember Thomas spoke of who recommended the Council pass a 10- year moratorium.
Councilmember Thomas answered that she did not advise those people to attend the meeting this evening. She stated the people who were invited live on Midland Drive.
VICKI REED, 18641 Midland Drive, asked if this was the same issue talked about in the newspaper this past week of widening 75th Street into Blackfish into Midland.
Councilmember Thomas stated it is a different Midland. She stated it was stated the Council would be discussing not widening 75th and Blackfish, but that goes into a different road than the one the Council just voted on.
VICKI REED stated the Council was not talking about widening all the way out to Shawnee Mission Parkway.
Mayor Allen stated that is correct.
Councilmember Goode stated the City never had any intention at any time of ever widening it.
Councilmember Pflumm stated the Council is not really even talking about widening 75th Street and he wonders why this issue was brought up in the first place.
Councilmember Thomas stated that when someone goes to 3,000 doors with a campaign of misinformation and riles up all the citizens in the Ward and has those people believing that it is the City’s and Councilmember Thomas’ intention to widen this street. She confirmed it is not her intention to widen this street and she has always opposed widening 75th and Blackfish. PAGE 29 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Goode stated he never got one e-mail from any of those 3,000 people that Councilmember Thomas mentioned.
Councilmember Pflumm stated he can not understand why the Council would ever suggest putting a 10-year moratorium on widening 75th and Blackfish when they do not have any idea of what is going to happen on 75th Street.
Councilmember Thomas stated that is because there is no traffic need for it and the City does not have the money. She stated it is not on the CIP and City Manager Montague suggested that this was the way to deal with the anxieties of the public. She stated the Council wants to give a promise in Ward 4 that 75th and Blackfish will stay the way it is for another 10 years.
Councilmember Pflumm stated the Council does not know what is going to happen on the west end of 75th Street or down at Midland, so why would they put a 10-year moratorium on it when maybe five years from now that area may need to be widened.
Councilmember Thomas stated the City does not have the money for it.
Councilmember Segale stated he does not support the motion not because he has some clever plot to widen the road and steal these resident’s backyards. He stated there was a person at one point running around the City telling people the City was going to widen Flint to six lanes between Johnson Drive and Shawnee Mission Parkway. He stated if people want to believe that kind of stuff and think their City Council is that bad, they are going to do these things regardless of whether there is a moratorium or not. He stated when he spoke with people in that area and they brought this up, he was stunned. He stated it has never been on the CIP since he has been on Council. He stated the moratorium was in effect for some of that and this has never been discussed and there is no apparent need. He stated in talking to people who live in that area, no one has told him that road is jammed up. He stated he does not know why the City Council would ever throw money into widening a road that did not need to be widened.
Councilmember Segale continued with the example of Monticello Road. He stated that road was built when it was evil to talk about four-lane roads in Shawnee and it should have been built as a four-lane road at the time and was built as a three-lane road and now the City is going to have to spend $4 million to widen it. He stated he believes the Council is reacting to fear like this is silly and he does not think the Council needs to pass a moratorium. He stated he believes people always need to watch their government and that is why they run for election every four years and hopefully choose people who have enough sense to not build things that do not need to be built. He stated the moratorium is not an idea the Council should pursue further. PAGE 30 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Goode stated more confidence is needed in the elected officials on the broad scale.
Therefore the motion read: Councilmember Thomas, seconded by Councilmember Newby, moved to approve a 10-year moratorium on the widening of 75th Street and Blackfish Parkway. The motion failed 2-6, with Councilmembers Thomas and Newby voting aye, and Councilmembers Pflumm, Segale, Sawyer, Goode, Meyers, and McGuff voting nay.
RETURN TO COUNCIL ITEM 25
25. THIS SITE PLAN WAS CALLED UP FOR REVIEW BY THE CITY COUNCIL. CONSIDER SP-10-04-02, A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR BANK OF AMERICA, FOR A BANK BUILDING WITH OFFICE SPACE AT 22503 WEST 66TH STREET.
LARRY WINN, 6201 College Boulevard, stated he knows the Council has read the minutes and everything that is relevant to this project. He stated this has been quite an adventure for the Bank of America. He stated this process was started in August or September 2003. He stated Bank of America proposed to build a branch bank facility at 66th and Hilltop. He stated that led into the natural evolution of the City policy where bank sites are encouraged to include office space. He presented an overhead of the building that was first presented to Planning Director Chaffee, which was the prototype for Bank of America. He stated to the distinct credit to the City staff and Planning Director Chaffee, in particular, the developer was told they would have to do a lot better. He stated for the next number of months the developer kept trying to add and enhance the building, make it larger, add the office, and neither the staff nor they were guided with a lot of criteria. He stated it is very much a subjective process, so that made it difficult on everyone. He stated Planning Director Chaffee did a great job jawboning the developer to continue to set it sites higher for this building.
LARRY WINN continued by stating he skipped through eight months of activity, but the building that was last considered by the Planning Commission is the building now shown on the easel in front of the Council. He stated this is a 7,800 square foot building and the office portion is around 62.5% of the bank area, 3,000 square feet in comparison to 4,800 square feet. He stated staff notes if approved, the overall size of the building, including the office, would be one of the larger combination bank office buildings along Shawnee Mission Parkway, west of I-435. He stated this led to the last couple of discussions with the Planning Commission. He stated there are five or six people on the Planning Commission who made very favorable comments on the building and thought the developer had come a long way. He stated there were still a few people who felt the goals were not met and had issues with design. He stated that, frankly, it is all over the park. He stated he is not being critical, but no one was dealt a cohesive game plan to start with. He stated the developers were told the City would just like some office space in conjunction with a branch bank building. PAGE 31 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Thomas asked if that was all that was said.
LARRY WINN stated he would go back to give some history. He stated that in December 2003, the developer came before the Council with a version of this building and some members of the Planning Commission stated they should be more specific about this building and tell the developers what they want. He stated that is when the new resolution came about for the 10,000 foot goal. He stated the Council should keep in mind that was not going to do the developers any good. He stated that on that night, December 1, 2003, the developers were turned down and on that same night, the Planning Commission declared a moratorium and changed the rules, literally, in the middle of the game. He stated there was another bank caught in this similar situation and they had been denied and were able to re-file their application before the moratorium took place and were able to build a substantially smaller office building than this one. He stated the developers would have never had the opportunity to get it grandfathered. He stated there was the denial, a moratorium, and then the new 10,000 square foot guideline. He stated he believes it was intended to be a guideline and many people on the Planning Commission suggested it was just a guideline.
LARRY WINN stated that in any event, a lot of varying opinions have been heard and a lot of people were called on to make aesthetic judgments without a lot of basis to make them. He stated the developers worked diligently with staff and noted the long list of stipulations that have been agreed on, on the record. He stated that after the developers were denied by the Planning Commission on a 6-4 vote, he personally worked with some members of the Council and they were kind enough to, at least, allow them to appear before the Council this evening and make their case. He stated he is not sure if there is anything else the developer can do. He stated that Planning Director Chaffee suggested to the Planning Commission that they should give the developers guidelines and if they were not going to approve the project, tell the developers what more they could do. He stated that did not get done and he will be very candid; he does not think it is going to do the developer any good to be remanded to the Planning Commission. He stated he is not being critical, as the Planning Commission has a tough job to do when there is a one- sentence guideline on what is supposed to happen.
Councilmember Segale stated when he read the minutes from the last meeting where the developers appeared before the Council and it was denied, it was his understanding that the developers said they were bringing this last plan in under these new guidelines. He stated the developers came in February and the plans were not finalized and the Planning Commission asked the developers if they accept that this plan is coming in under this new amended Chapter 5, Item 13 and the developers said, as he recalls, that they do recognize that.
LARRY WINN stated that procedurally they had no choice. He stated the only way they could have not come in under the new guidelines, was if they had filed a new application the night of December 1, 2003 at 8:30 p.m. or 9:00 p.m., which was, obviously, not going to happen. PAGE 32 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Segale stated the Council approved that amendment to the Land Use Guide. He stated it reads, ‘... they will be reviewed with the expectation of architectural distinction and multi-story elevations and/or multi-tenant office space. It is suggested such buildings contain a minimum of 10,000 square feet.’
LARRY WINN stated the new language is just the last sentence that was just read and everything else was previous language.
Councilmember Segale stated he agrees that architectural distinction is kind of a murky thing. He stated he was talking to the City staff today and it is difficult for them to read the tea leaves of what the Planning Commission and the City Council says and compare that with what the developers actually want to build. He stated he understands the difficulty there, but the 10,000 square foot thing is clear and the reason the Planning Commission allowed the wiggle room, as was stated in the minutes, was on sites where there was not enough space to build a 10,000 square foot building with the parking requirements and they would look at allowing a lesser sized structure. He stated what the developers are presenting this evening is a 7,800 square foot structure, which is less than the 10,000 square feet that the Planning Commission and the Council voted they want to see. He stated the Planning Commission’s argument is that there are four acres on this site and a 10,000 square foot building can be built here to meet the guidelines. He stated the Planning Commission went on to say that they do not think this building represents architectural distinction in their eyes, because of the way the office space juts out like a sore thumb.
LARRY WINN stated he would be cautious saying “they” with regard to the Planning Commission, as he believes it was one person and does not think there was any consensus at all that the building did not have architectural distinction. He stated one Planning Commission member stated he thought the office portion somehow jutted out; whatever that meant. He stated that unlike a lot of people who have built these buildings in Shawnee, the office space that is referred to and is so valued has frankly been nothing more than backroom bank space. He stated the developers busted their rear ends to have an office space that was office space. He stated it is intended to be leased to people so they have separate signage and a separate door and to bring in accountants and attorneys and other professionals to fill the building with real office space and not as an afterthought of what they could do, as a bank, to skin the cat under this ordinance. He stated the developers like the way the building has evolved through the negotiations with the City staff. He stated it is a nice sized building and the developers never intended to fill up the site just because there was four acres, either as to bank or as to office. He stated the developers believe the building is in very nice proportion to the site and they do not think they need to go asphalt to asphalt and max out the site, as many of the City’s retailers want to do.
Councilmember Segale stated that a drawing is included in the packet that shows potential future buildings to kind of max out the site, if you will. He stated he believes the architectural distinction is murky, but he thinks the 10,000 square foot requirement is less murky. He stated on principle, he thinks it is important, as a Council, to try to move PAGE 33 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
some of the City’s development to a higher standard and to distinguish the community as a higher value community. He stated he believes the Council needs to stick with the Planning Commission on this, even though the architectural distinction is murky, but in particular, the 10,000 square foot requirement.
LARRY WINN stated he thinks the 10,000 square feet is a matter of fairness. He stated as the developers started into this process in August 2003, there was not a 10,000 square foot requirement. He stated they evolved to 8,000 square feet. He stated the 10,000 square feet was an afterthought in December 2003 and the Planning Commission said that in addition to these other things, why not add a 10,000 square foot requirement. He asked if the developers technically had an application that was grandfathered and then answered no, because it was impossible, as the Planning Commission threw a moratorium on them. He stated the developers had no chance to have been grandfathered and if he thought they could have been grandfathered, he would have filed an application after they were denied on December 1, 2003 at 8:15 p.m. or 8:30 p.m., the very next morning.
Councilmember Segale stated the message the Council wants to send is that they do not want to scare development away from Shawnee. He asked if Mr. Winn had a chance to work or talk with the staff about how this new requirement is evolving and how Bank of America sees that kind of building fitting into this new scheme.
LARRY WINN stated there was no evolution of the 10,000 square feet. He stated the 10,000 square feet did not exist and then literally overnight, it existed.
Councilmember Segale asked Mr. Winn if he had any input or a chance to talk with staff about his project in particular and how these changes would impact this kind of operation.
LARRY WINN answered no. He stated he did not get a chance to talk to staff about that. He stated he and the developers had left the room on the night of December 1, 2003 and were long gone when the moratorium all of a sudden evolved, so they had no input whatsoever.
Councilmember Pflumm asked if when the developers were going through this process and dealing with the City staff, did staff give any kind of feedback as to what the developer should be doing to get this building approved.
LARRY WINN answered that is a good question. He stated that is what happened in all these months between August and December 2003. He stated the developers came in and Planning Director Chaffee, based on what had happened before, said he thought the developers should consider doing this or that. He stated he did not present to the Council this evening all the renditions of this project from August through February. He stated he skipped through all of those renditions to keep moving toward what the Planning staff thought the Council and Planning Commission was trying to get at, in terms of the big picture. PAGE 34 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Pflumm stated he understands. He stated the second time the developers went to the Planning Commission they set the moratorium and basically said no to this.
LARRY WINN answered that is correct.
Councilmember Pflumm asked if the Planning Commission made any recommendations at the first or second meeting or ever told the developers what exactly was wrong with the plans.
LARRY WINN stated at the first meeting, he can not remember any mention of size. He stated there were some architectural concerns and the developers went back again and made some additional architectural changes. He stated the Chairman of the Planning Commission stated he did not have a problem with the total space or percentage of office versus bank, but thought some of the architecture should be redone. He stated the developers took a cue from that and went back and made further changes. He stated there were several more, very expensive, additional material changes, edifice changes, and exterior changes.
Councilmember Pflumm stated the City and Planning Commission did have input into changes that happened.
LARRY WINN stated the changes were the staff’s best effort to interpret what they were hearing from the dais and telling the developers to go back to the drawing board. He stated the thought was that maybe they will know it when they see it. He stated it was an imperfect science, but he believes that is kind of the way all the other bank buildings have been done. He stated he believes those other banks probably started with their boiler plate as well, and then moved into something that incorporated the office space.
Mayor Allen stated he would interject something for the record. He stated he has had two or three meetings in the last several months on this item. He stated he very clearly remembers one meeting with a real estate person with Bank of America, who was on a tight time schedule from St. Louis, Missouri, and said he had done, literally, hundreds of these branches across the Midwest as their head real estate person and had never had an office requirement like this one. He stated this individual was rather shocked and it was explained to him that that is where Shawnee is headed and the City wanted to see office space. He stated, if he remembers correctly, Bank of America wanted their branch bank to be a secured building by itself with no other occupants. He stated if an office was going to be built, it would be attached to the building or be somewhat separate.
LARRY WINN stated one of the Planning Commission members brought up the issue of why not connect up the bank space with the office space, because other banks have done that when using that as back room space. He stated the developers thought the macro policy here was to entice people to lease office space in Shawnee, so that is what they designed toward and have that office space clearly designed as office space and not the ugly stepsister of the bank. He stated that is how the project evolved. PAGE 35 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Pflumm stated there is a major issue in Shawnee. He stated there are 50 million banks in Shawnee and in 10 years there is only going to be five banks. He stated the issue with office space is the City wants office space associated with the banks so something else can happen to those banks when they all get bought up. He stated he is in favor of office space and banks, but the issue on this particular bank is, he believes, this was a work in progress before the Planning Commission made their recommendations to the City Council. He stated he is in favor of more than 10,000 square feet and more than two or more stories in these locations, but in this case, he would go back and make a motion to approve this thing, since it was a work in progress before the City changed their policy.
Councilmember Thomas stated the fact is that this is a new application. She stated the developers were turned down on the old application and then the moratorium was put into place and this new application was brought in. She stated this application comes under the new guidelines. She stated Mr. Winn says he is not sure what more the developers can do. She stated that Mr. Winn and the developers had the opportunity to have this item tabled and to meet with Planning Director Chaffee and he would tell them they could go to a 10,000 square feet architectural distinction. She stated the developers refused to do that and strategically chose to have it voted down that night, so they could try to run it through the Council. She stated Mr. Winn has now lobbied some of the Councilmembers privately, but not everyone.
LARRY WINN stated that first of all, he has not lobbied. He stated the City’s process requires four councilmembers to call the matter up. He stated he called whoever it took to see if he could find four Councilmembers that would give them a forum this evening. He stated that in talking to none of those Councilmembers did he ever ask for their support of the substance of the project and simply asked if they could accommodate the developers, so they at least had a chance. He stated if this project is going to go down in flames, he feels it should go down in flames in front of the Governing Body and not the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Thomas stated that Mr. Winn and the Council differs on that, because generally the Council’s policy is that the Planning Commission, as a labor of love because they make no money, studies these plans and goes over them with a fine tooth comb, as that is their specialty. She stated the Planning Commission are the ones who came up with the policy and the Council even asked them if they wanted them to tighten the policy up, so it read absolutely 10,000 square feet, unless there is an extenuating circumstance. She stated Bob Mazza said no, leave it the way it is. She stated the intention clearly is, as it reads in the minutes, is it is 10,000 square feet, unless the project is on a creek or there is some type of ravine problem or a small site. She stated Bank of America can do better than this. She stated this plan looks like a Jiffy Lube. She stated it looks like the bays could just be blown out and a car repair place could be put in.
Councilmember Thomas continued on Page 51 of the Planning Commission minutes, as she wanted to correct a couple of things. She stated it was not a Commissioner that said that the office stuck out like a sore thumb, it was Planning Director Chaffee who stated PAGE 36 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
that. She stated Mr. Winn stated in the minutes that, ‘... it was their intention that there be no connection between the buildings, because they want to separate them.’
LARRY WINN asked Councilmember Thomas where she was referring to.
Councilmember Thomas reiterated Page 51 of the Planning Commission minutes of March 1, 2004.
Councilmember Segale stated Planning Director Chaffee was characterizing what he had heard people saying.
Councilmember Thomas stated it is in the approved minutes. She stated Mr. Winn was then offered the opportunity by Planning Director Chaffee to table this item and Chase Simmons said, “With all due respect, they would like to go ahead and take the vote this evening, rather than try to remodel the building.” She stated the developers do not want to remodel the building, they just want to find five votes so they can do what they want.
LARRY WINN stated the developers have remodeled the building probably half a dozen times since August 2003. He stated at some point, these matters have to come to a conclusion.
Councilmember Thomas stated if the developers are not at 10,000 square feet, they are not in the ballpark.
LARRY WINN stated if the Council is going to count it against the developers that they were denied on December 1, 2003 and that same night the Planning Commission passed a new policy and changed the rules of the game.
Councilmember Thomas stated she is not counting that against them, that was an ugly plan and should have been turned down on its own merits and it was. She stated then there was a new policy. The Council is trying to get Mr. Winn and the developers to understand that they are not coming near to meeting the new policy. She stated it has been misstated by a Commissioner that the developers bent over backwards to work with the Planning staff. She stated she called Planning Director Chaffee and asked if that was true. She stated Planning Director Chaffee told her that in his estimation, that is not true and the developers are not even really listening to what the City staff wants. She stated Bank of America certainly has the financial wherewithal to build the whole 10,000 square feet and make it look nicer; not like a Jiffy Lube.
LARRY WINN stated Councilmember Thomas’ comment about the Jiffy Lube is the problem with this entire process. He stated there were four or five people who came in and told the developers they thought the building looked just fine and was much approved. He stated Councilmember Thomas can characterize it however she wants to, but he thinks it is a handsome building, a brick building, a substantial building, 7,800 square feet, of which 3,000 is office space. He stated the developers have met or exceeded what any of their competitors have done. PAGE 37 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Thomas stated all of the competitors were under the old policy and the City came up with that policy because banks tried to put little Fox Photo buildings on all the good corners of the City. She stated the developers would go to them and say they needed a loan and the bank would say, “Sure, I’ll give you a loan. You give me Boardwalk and Park Place. I get the best spot and I’m going to park this dinky little building on there that pays no sales taxes to the City or any other revenue, other than property tax on a little tiny footprint.” She stated the City finally woke up after 13 banks.
LARRY WINN asked how the City would have sales tax coming off of an office building.
Councilmember Thomas stated there would not be sales taxes coming from an office building, but it would meet one of the other priority needs, which is office space.
LARRY WINN stated he did not want to argue with Councilmember Thomas, and to please forgive him, but if the City of Shawnee is going to experience substantial office growth it is not going to come in 3,000 foot increments, in his opinion, but in 100,000 foot increments. He stated the marketplace, when they count rooftops in Shawnee, is going to determine that somebody will start building real office buildings and not something that is attached to a bank. He stated the City is going to provide space for that and the City has a land master plan for substantial office development. He stated he is talking about the type of office development on College Boulevard; that in his humble opinion, are the kind of offices the Council should be encouraging to come to the City of Shawnee in hugely larger doses than all the space picked up from all the banks put all together.
Councilmember Thomas stated that is correct and that would be great, but there is also the issue of architectural distinction. She stated if developers plop these little one story strip centers or these Fox Photo size buildings on all the good corners, then it gets a Mayberry look by not having that architectural presence. She stated that is why the guidelines say 10,000 square feet architectural distinction and hopefully two stories. She stated the developers have resisted the two story guideline as well.
LARRY WINN stated that during this entire process there has never been a comment relating to the height of the building or the lack of two stories.
Councilmember Meyers stated he thinks the fact of the matter is that this applicant was interested in this property prior to the new stipulations. He stated he believes the applicant was involved in a process. He stated there were a lot of discussions with the City’s Planning staff and the developers were involved in trying to come up with criteria that would meet the satisfaction of our Planning staff and the Planning Commission. He stated the developers did meet the criteria, at least it seems that way, when the Planning staff says they are supportive of the plan. He stated he thinks a perfect example of some of these situations that arise that become unique, is the situation with what the Council heard in dealing with the office part of this project; whether it was integrated or not PAGE 38 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
integrated and the integration of office in this project is not something that is part of the City’s policy. He stated he thinks the developers were trying to do something that they felt the City wanted to see or even what they felt like they could do and have it be acceptable. He stated the non-integration of office space within the bank was not part of the policy at that time. He stated it is one of the unique situations that arise and he does see that the developers tried to make a plan that was more appealing by adding office space with the architectural design. He stated that is why he was trying to get a clearer picture and were there stipulations put to the applicant by saying this is exactly what the City wants. He stated he goes back to saying the developers were involved in this process and were involved with wanting to place their development on this piece of property. He stated that in his mind, the game did change and he feels the developer was trying to go along with the game to the best of their ability.
Councilmember Meyers continued by stating he does believe that Bank of America has the ability to do lots of other things. He stated he thinks that is true, but also thinks Bank of America tried to do what they thought was in the very best of their interest along with meeting criteria that the Planning staff was trying to engage with them in the planning of this development. He stated he has a hard time with this. He stated he knows the Council agreed to the new stipulations that the Planning Commission put on. He stated he agrees with Councilmember Pflumm and others that have spoke that the City does want to see 10,000 square feet of office space and multi-story buildings, but in conclusion, he believes the developers were involved in the game and some things did change. He stated one of the other things he looks at, is if he feels the City is going to be able to defend this in court and are they creating a situation that becomes more of a problem for the City, than what they have here by accepting the plan as presented. He stated at this point in time, he is in agreement with Councilmember Pflumm that this is an acceptable development, because of all the information he has gathered.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he was on the Planning Commission before he came to the City Council and this kind of thing has come up before on these branch banks. He stated that frankly, the Planning Commission has not been, in his opinion, set. He stated there always was this magic number of 10,000 square feet. He stated 10,000 square feet is rather ambiguous, because it could be an 8,000 square foot lobby to a drive-in bank and 2,000 square feet of office. He stated his issue with this, is that the Planning Commission has not always lived up to their standards, because they have sent some projects to the Council for approval that did not meet the 10,000 square foot requirement. He stated that the policy was changed on this project in mid-stream. He stated he did not like the first building the developers brought to the Planning Commission either, but the plan was changed. He stated he knows there was a bank prior to this project that was turned down by the Planning Commission, but that developer got the opportunity to come back and it was finally approved, but did not meet the 10,000 square foot requirement. He stated he is in favor of moving this forward, but also believes the Council needs to go back and make it clear they do not want just a 10,000 square foot building, but want 5,000 square feet of bank and 5,000 square feet of office, or whatever they decide. He stated if the City is really after office space, then it should be defined what the City wants as office space. He stated the City may be shocked at what they actually get one of these days. PAGE 39 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Segale stated he agrees with Mr. Winn and the Council wants to see what will hopefully develop in Shawnee with the right climate. He stated the City really wants a daytime population to match what it has in the evening. He stated whether it is a 2,000 square foot lobby or 8,000 square foot lobby and 2,000 square foot of office space, if someone was strange enough to build something like that, that would be their choice. He stated this project is a bank with some office or storefront type things attached to the side of it. He stated that as far as the rules of the game changing, he thinks the process was followed. He stated the developer brought in a project and it was denied and later that evening the Planning Commission put the moratorium on, so the developer came back and went through the system while this was being developed. He stated when the developer finally came to the Planning Commission, it was agreed that the stipulations would fall under this new amended language and it does not meet that 10,000 square foot requirement. He stated the developer knew the requirements were being changed when the application was resubmitted and he thinks those are the rules the developer is going to have to follow. He stated he does not think the argument that the rules of the game changed in the middle of the process holds up. He asked Associate Planner Allmon about the project that was approved while this was all going on. He asked if that developer had the issue of the amount of ground they had being too little.
Associate Planner Allmon stated that ground was approximately one acre.
Councilmember Segale stated that ground was too small for something 10,000 square feet.
Associate Planner Allmon stated that property could not support parking for a facility of 10,000 square feet.
Councilmember Segale stated that project that got through during the process is legitimate because it had too small of an area, which is why they put in the wiggle room language into the minutes.
LARRY WINN stated he would like to respond to one thing on the moratorium. He stated he is not going to argue whether the moratorium is legal or illegal. He stated he has seen some moratoriums over the decades that he has worked in this area, and has never seen a moratorium passed the same night that the same subject matter came up. He stated that typically the world is on notice that a city is contemplating a moratorium on one type of development or not and everyone is put on notice and there is a public hearing on the moratorium and time for the development community to react. He stated all he is suggesting this time, is assuming that someone was going to accept a filing from him at 9:00 p.m. on a Monday night, there was no time to react. He stated that is why he brought up the fairness issue and he is not trying to change the Council’s mind.
Councilmember Segale stated he can see where Mr. Winn is coming from. PAGE 40 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Newby stated he thinks everybody on either side of this issue has made well grounded comments. He stated this was an issue long before he was on the Council, so he knows it has been discussed a lot and a person would have had to have been under a rock not to have known that this was a situation the City was concerned about. He stated the very fact that it was on the agenda the same night, does take away some of the argument that this changed in mid-stream. He stated for that reason, if the Council really believes they want the Planning Commission to go to 10,000 square feet, he does not think the Planning Commission will be inclined to push it that much if the Council does not support them this evening. He stated he will support the Planning Commission tonight.
DAWN KUHN, 5329 Gleason, stated she wanted to address a few things. She said she is the Branch Manager and Vice President of the Bank Midwest located directly across the street from the proposed site for the Bank of America. She stated first of all, no one can be a bigger proponent of growth and development, especially in western Shawnee, than she is. She stated she will surprise everyone by saying that she really wants Bank of America to go in across the street from her. She stated she knows everyone thinks she does not want this and it is competition of banks, but she wants Bank of America there. She stated she does not want them going the way that they are. She stated she thinks the Council is absolutely correct to support the Planning Commission. She stated the Planning Commission came before the City Council and asked for this to be approved as it was. She stated it was denied. She stated that in her opinion, that makes a new proposal coming before the Council. She stated if the moratorium happened the same night, it was on the agenda, and the developer had the opportunity to come back afterwards to speak with people to see what everyone wanted. She stated that during this entire time, there have been other banks built but, not on those primary corners which are the bigger revenue generators for Shawnee. She stated in places like Bank Midwest and the new Great Western Bank; both have architectural significance. She stated she knows that is a very subjective term, but no one can not look at these two banks and realize they are a little different and original. She stated that is what the Planning Commission is asking for, and in her opinion, the proposed structure is not different and original.
DAWN KUHN continued by stating that a second area that was talked about is security, and she completely understands, because before she came to Bank Midwest, she was an officer with Bank of America, so she understands their buildings and their security procedures incredibly well. She stated it is not true that a bank building, for security purposes, can not be attached to another office building. She stated case in point, her building, she has attached to the same wall on the other side an orthodontist who will be coming in at the end of the month. She stated secondly, look at Country Club Bank; they have a second floor that is currently housing the church offices from across the street. She stated that is a secondary entrance where people do not have to come through the bank lobby. She stated the safety of a bank does not have to be jeopardized in order to be in compliance with what the Planning Commission is asking to do.
DAWN KUHN continued by stating if the Council would look at the area of the square footage, she has done some math on those numbers. She stated the developers are telling PAGE 41 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
them there is 7,800 square feet and currently, they are going to put in 3,000 square feet of office. She stated that initially, that was said to be 62%. She stated she is pretty positive her math adds up a little differently than that. She stated her banking center has an office space next to it just short of 1,700 square feet, which is just slightly smaller than her entire banking facility. She stated she finds it absolutely abhorrent that the City would look at putting in a facility that is not making use of that prime corner. She stated the City is not going to generate sales tax by opening office space there, but what they are going to do is open enough office space that when it is filled with people who are going to shop in the area and want to buy their lunches in the area, will generate sales tax, as well as all of the developments that she absolutely wants to see coming, which are not going to come unless the City gives them people to go to lunch.
DAWN KUHN stated she went door to door and the biggest thing she heard is that the people want development in Shawnee, but they do not want it to look haphazard and they want it to look attractive and appealing, overall. She stated she would really like to see the Council deny this particular proposal, but then would like to see Bank of America partner with the Planning Commission and get some more specific answers to what they want and come up with some things that work better and then be approved at a later date. She stated she thinks the Council is fooling themselves if they say they do not want to do this, because it might become a legal issue. She stated she asked one of the members of the Planning Commission why he approved this plan and he told her that it is not that he thought it met the criteria, but that he thought if it is not approved, the City might be in legal trouble. She stated sooner or later the Council is going to have to throw down the gauntlet to what they think is important in Shawnee and she thinks this is as good a time as any.
Councilmember Sawyer asked about the size of her banking and office facility and asked if it met the 10,000 square foot rule.
DAWN KUHN stated the 1,700 square feet office next to the bank is slightly smaller than the banking center.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he tends to agree with Ms. Kuhn, except the rules were changed in mid-stream on this particular project. He stated that is where he disagrees with Ms. Kuhn. He stated he applauds her for having so much passion this evening. He stated the problem here is that the rules were changed in mid-stream and if she were in the developer’s shoes, she would have as much passion as them. He stated it is not that he does not support the Planning Commission; he thinks a good stab was made at changing the rules. He stated with 10,000 square feet, the City could get whatever. He stated it is obvious that no one is going to build an 8,000 square foot lobby, but it could happen and the City still does not get the office space. He stated he does not know that he agrees if this was a work in progress, and there was a project prior to this one that got approved that was somewhat questionable, so that is the issues he has with this particular project. PAGE 42 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
DAWN KUHN stated she absolutely agrees with Councilmember Sawyer, but first of all, her banking center is not on a corner, they are actually up on a hill centered between two corners. She stated the space, by acreage, would not support a 10,000 square foot facility and would either end up in the retaining pond down below or end up out on the street. She stated her bank built an architecturally significant banking center that had pretty close equal office space. She addressed Councilmember Sawyer’s statement that the Planning Commission changed the rules on Bank of America on mid-stream and stated she listened to something Mr. Winn said today and she thought to herself, ‘why are we even here.’ She stated she heard Mr. Winn say they came to the Council and was turned down and looking at this piece of paper, there are 12 things they have done since then. She stated she thought to herself if someone is in the middle of a moratorium and knew that the Planning Commission had just said no to them and were changing the rules, why not just come to the Planning Commission in the beginning and ask what they want and do it right the first time. She stated that saying the rules were changed on this project in mid-stream is like saying she told her kid he couldn’t do something when he was four, but it is not okay to tell him it is different when he is 16. She stated sometimes the rules are just different.
Councilmember Sawyer stated he is in the convenience store business and understands what she is saying. He stated he dealt with the City of Lenexa on a project and ended up getting a Taj Mahal at 10 Highway and Woodland; something that his company had never built until this time. He stated it is pretty, but it does not pay the bills.
Councilmember Segale stated the Council can sit there and say they all want higher quality development, but this situation is kind of a test for them. He stated he is glad the Planning Commission has gone out and tried to raise the standards. He stated he thinks the principle here is for the Council to stand up with the Planning Commission and say the developers may not have it perfectly right, but agree with what they are trying to do. He stated they want Bank of America to come to Shawnee and build a building that is going to set the kind of development that will follow and surround it, especially on a distinctive corner. He stated that is the point of this whole thing. He stated it is not about changing rules, because he believes everyone knew rules were being changed and new plans were being submitted and, as they have all heard from Associate Planner Allmon, the plan that was approved would have been approved even if these rules were in place because they did not have enough space.
Councilmember Segale continued by stating that the other project at that time got through because their developers were lucky enough to file at the right time. He stated that by saying that this developer was not lucky enough, is not necessarily the complete story. He stated the other project was approved because they have too small of a space. He stated he believes the Council needs to support the Planning Commission on this because the message they are sending them is ‘why bother, the Council did not support us’. He stated the Council did not have a lot of discussion when they passed this amendment to the Land Use Guide and maybe they should have had more discussion as a Council on what they were approving at that time. He stated the Planning Commission approved it, the Council voted on it, and they need to stick to their guns on this. PAGE 43 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Meyers stated if a bank came to City staff today and said they wanted to attach an office just as shown on this subject plan, would the City staff say yes or no. He stated the staff would say yes, because it is not part of the policy to say no.
Associate Planner Allmon stated the policy does not say that the office has to be integrated into the floor plan of the main bank building.
Councilmember Meyers stated that is his point. He stated that is the situation he is trying to get at and if he remembers correctly, one of the main problems that the Planning Commission had with this project was that the office was not integrated, but that is not part of the policy. He stated he agrees with Councilmember Segale that there has to be more discussions and the Council needs to take a step further. He stated he is not saying he is not supporting the Planning Commission, but he does believe in this situation and believes the rules did get changed in a development that was interested in this property and did want to put in this development and had the intentions of trying to do some of the things that they were being directed by the Planning staff in order to do them. He stated that because of the timing and evolution of what was taking place through a moratorium and the procedures, he believes this developer was put in a difficult position of being able to get done what everyone felt was the ideal situation to take place on this piece of property. He stated he has to agree on the side that the development that in his mind, fits the requirements that were laid out through the City staff in negotiating the development of this property.
Councilmember McGuff stated there are faults on both sides and the thing he is hearing the most is that the City’s Planning staff did not give enough direction on what to do. He stated on the other hand he sees, maybe, some frustration and maybe some digging in of the heels. He stated he believes both parties are to blame that they are here this evening at an impasse. He stated he does not know if Mr. Winn can answer this for him, but he understands the developer’s predicament and keeps looking at the presented building plan, and he is no architectural expert, but the building is certainly pretty uninspiring. He stated he would like to see something nicer and see something get approved, but would like Mr. Winn to tell the Council if this is it. He stated the Planning staff needs to do a better job in giving direction. He asked Mr. Winn if they would be willing to work up something better. He stated the current building proposed is no thing of beauty, but it may suffice. He stated he wants the developer to get their project into Shawnee, but there has to be a better solution.
LARRY WINN stated that at no time did they every dig their heels in and he does not think that is a fair characteristic. He stated if they wanted to dig their heels in, they would have done so last August when the process was started, not nine months later. He stated there has never been a staff problem. He stated he believes the City staff has done an amazing job of taking this kind of general policy and jawboning, to put it politely, a lot of banks to come in and add office space to their facilities, which they probably did not want to do to be honest. He stated it was never a staff issue and every time the staff made a suggestion, the developers have added it, put more brick, put less stucco; PAGE 44 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
whatever the combination was. He stated for a policy that is problematical, in terms of its legal enforceability, the City staff should get the purple heart for wrestling all of these banks and telling them that even though the property is zoned to build a bank, they are on a prime corner and office space is requested. He stated the staff has hit a home run and has gotten every bank that has come to Shawnee, in one proportion or another, to add office space. He stated the developer’s problem is this is split right down the middle of the Planning Commission and they have no compelling, single thing that jumps out for direction. He stated that by Councilmember McGuff saying the building is not inspiring, ‘inspiring’ is not a word that a developer understands. He stated it is not in the architectural dictionary, but in the eyes of the beholder.
Councilmember McGuff stated they have dug in their heels. He stated there would not have been this much discussion all night long. He stated that obviously the people are concerned about it. He stated they are also concerned if the Council does not approve this, there will be legal ramifications. He stated one would think if someone wanted to operate within the City, there would be some way to come to an agreement. He stated that obviously there are reservations among everyone, because this conversation has gone on and on. He stated he would like to work something out.
LARRY WINN stated he does not mean to be adversarial or argumentative, but if he were to ask Councilmember McGuff, as a lay person, what he would do to that building, what would he say. He stated that is the developer’s frustration.
Councilmember McGuff stated that is why he was so quick to accept blame on the part of the City staff. He stated Mr. Winn has told the Council they had 12 plans and it should not have been that hard. He stated he thinks the City staff made it hard for the developers.
LARRY WINN stated that has been kind of the process. He stated the developer comes in and the staff says that will not get it done, so they come in again and are told they are getting closer, but need to do the following, and they come back again and again. He stated the developers are not mad about that, as they believe that is the cumulative way to improve the building process and he thinks it is a good process and worked very well.
Councilmember McGuff stated that Mr. Winn had said in his own words that the staff did not give the developers direction.
LARRY WINN stated the staff kept encouraging the Planning Commission if they do not like it, then tell the developers what they do not like, so they do not bid against themselves.
Councilmember McGuff stated that obviously something is not quite right here. He stated this kind of process is never this difficult. He stated he is asking Mr. Winn if the Council could have some time to ask the staff what the problem really is. PAGE 45 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
LARRY WINN stated on Page 38 of the Planning Commission minutes, under the heading Recommendation, it reads: The Planning Commission shall consider if the size of the bank and the amount of office space provided, as well as the architecture of the building, meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. If the plan is deemed acceptable, then staff would recommend approval. He stated it is really a subjective judgment that has been made by the Planning Commission. He stated he is not saying that is bad, but the developers are up there getting 5-5 and 6-4 votes. He stated he is confused about the whole thing.
Councilmember McGuff stated he is baffled by the whole thing as well, as it should not be this difficult. He stated he would like to see some more input from the staff, because that is the thing he kept hearing over and over. He stated he is not faulting Mr. Winn for saying that, he is saying the staff needs to do better, because it should not have been this difficult for the developers.
LARRY WINN stated it should not be this difficult, but his experience is in going back to the staff, the staff will say they had them do this, but in the final analysis, it is going to be a very subjective, esoteric type judgment on behalf of the Planning Commission and that is just the nature of the beast they are dealing with. He stated he is not being critical and it is nobody’s fault, but just kind of the way the ball lies.
DAVID MORRIS, 6125 Melrose Lane, stated he has been to a number of these Planning Commission meetings and Council meetings on this subject and it seems to him what is happening is the City is trying not to micromanage these companies and tell them what to do, but in the long run, they are telling them what to do. He stated it seems like if someone took a camera and went out and took pictures of structures they liked and showed the developers, it would, sort of, solve the problem. He stated it is like the City does not want to offend anybody and not tell them what the City is looking for, but at the same time it is just being made very complicated.
Councilmember Segale stated there should be some examples, as Mr. Morris alluded to. He stated they do have examples in the downtown plan. He stated the City does not tell people they have to use XYZ brick and XYZ color stone, but had examples of what the City likes. He stated that is what should happen in this place and the Planning Commission does need to do more work. He stated he would urge the Council, because it looks like they are at a 4-4 deadlock right now, on the opposite of Councilmembers McGuff, Thomas, Newby, and himself, to look at this and say if the Council overrides the Planning Commission tonight, there is going to be someone left on the moon and the rockets will have left and the City is going to be stuck with this bank. He stated he does not think the Council needs to settle for that now. He stated he hopes that Bank of America is still willing to work with Shawnee to get the kind of building that the City wants and one they can operate successfully. He stated that is the way they should proceed with this; support the Planning Commission and allow the Council to have this discussion at another day and, hopefully, some of them will still be on the Council to have this discussion so they can further refine this, because he believes it is important to the community. PAGE 46 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
Councilmember Segale continued that Mr. Bedora, as far as he knows, brought this up a three or four years ago at one of the joint Planning Commission meetings and he sees him as kind of the father of this whole thing and is glad he did it. He stated he talked to Mr. Bedora on the phone about this last night and he does think the Council needs to support this kind of an issue and not vote tonight to override the Planning Commission on this kind of a 4-4 split. He stated in this case they are confused on the issue, so the Council should continue to talk about it and not let this building get built.
Councilmember McGuff stated that was his question for Mr. Winn and he never did get an answer. He stated his question to Mr. Winn is, would he be willing to let the City staff take one more look at this thing and try to achieve a better product, or is this kind of the end of the line for the developers. He stated he does not mean that in a derogatory way, but the Council needs to know how they feel, so they will know what to do.
LARRY WINN stated he is not trying to dodge that question, but it is a difficult question. He stated to keep in mind the perspective that they have been working with the City since August trying to find the right key to the combination. He stated he does not know if the developers added a chimney on the west side is that going to, or not going to, get it done. He stated that is the problem. He stated he leaves with the frustration of continuing to bid against each other, not knowing if they are ever going to meet the satisfaction of the people, primarily lay people in the case of the Planning Commission, trying to make architectural judgments. He stated he tends to think the developers are better off playing it like it lies, and if they are not able to do business in the City, they are just not able to and everybody gave it their best shot. He stated sometimes things do not work out.
Councilmember Goode stated he has talked to several prominent bankers in Johnson County and they have told him they are in the banking business, not in the office rental business. He stated he made up his mind to support what those type of people have and the bankers flat out told him they do not care if they rent office space or not. He stated they are prominent bankers too.
Councilmember McGuff stated he thinks the City staff needed to do a better job and he has tried to improve the situation and it is not going to go any further. He stated he is going to support it, but with reservations and he thinks the City needs to do a better job.
Councilmember Pflumm, seconded by Councilmember Goode, moved to approve SP-10- 04-02, a site plan for Bank of America, for a bank building with office space at 22503 West 66th Street. The motion carried 5-3, with Councilmembers Pflumm, Sawyer, Goode, Meyers, and McGuff voting aye, and Councilmembers Segale, Thomas, and Newby voting nay. PAGE 47 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004
39. CONDUCT EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING LAND ACQUISITION.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, moved to recess to executive session for approximately 15 minutes for the purpose of land acquisition, with the City Council meeting to reconvene in the Council Chambers at the conclusion of the executive session. The motion carried 8-0, and the meeting recessed at 9:59 p.m.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Meyers, moved to conclude the executive session. The motion carried 8-0.
Councilmember Segale, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to reconvene the meeting. The motion carried 8-0, and the meeting reconvened at 10:17 p.m.
Councilmember Sawyer, seconded by Councilmember Segale, moved to direct staff to acquire property between Flint and King Streets, north of Johnson Drive for the east pool, providing the legal concerns regarding financing methods can be resolved. The motion carried 8-0.
Councilmember Thomas, seconded by Councilmember Newby, moved to authorize City Attorney Rainey to revise and review the new prime corner policy and provide recommendations to the Planning Commission and the Council. The motion carried 8-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Goode, seconded by Councilmember Pflumm, moved to adjourn. The motion carried 8-0, and the meeting adjourned at 10:19 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Cindy Terrell, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
______Carol Gonzales, Deputy City Manager